Capitol Hill Blue Forums Life and Moral Issues Morality & Society Altruism -- a load of piffle?

ahhh Logan.
Those were my glasses. I left my paid for packages at the customer service desk yesterday to go back step through the store to try to find my glasses that I had obviously laid down somewhere. When I returned to the front the customer service rep handed me my glasses.
Thank you!
This is a true story.
I had no idea who turned them in.

I think it's all in the eye of the beholder. I do good things and they give me pleasure to know I've helped someone. I leave nice size tips in hotel rooms for the cleaning lady I will never see. I provide and serve at the homeless shelter.
These kinds of thing enrich my existence.
I don't know what word you want to call this.
Not altruism because I get something in return? That's fine (with me) if that's what is determined here.

At this point it just seems like this discussion has become parsing words.

Numan I like your long posting too. Nice.

Another scenario:

When Jesus of Nazareth went into the Garden of Gethemene and prayed, asking his Father to, if possible, spare him from having to allow himself to be crucified, yet saying the Father's will be done, not his own, and he went on to be sacrificed for the redemption of Man, was that motivated by altruism?
Yours,
Issodhos

Again, it depends on your definition of altruism, Issodhos.
Was it a selfless act? I think it was.
(let me qualify this and say, I'm not religious. This purely for the sake of the debate. I do believe Jesus existed. In what capacity, I don't know)

He did it for a reason. I suspect he thought that good things would come from it.

Putting yourself in front of a moving train to save another person would be the same thing.

To me, the giver 'getting something' (pleasure, peace, enrichment, whatever) for flinging themselves out there to do a good thing (if it really accomplishes that), is beside the point.
And it doesn't matter what you call it.

Maybe we just can't help it...

woah there, thats built on so many assumptions I cant even begin to figure it out!

Well, first of all, get your theology right. The words of the prayer were (using the revised standard version):
Matthew 26: 39

And again:
Matthew 26: 42

You are making, as Schlack notes, a series of assumptions in your question that I reject. Most specifically, about the motivation of Jesus. And because I reject them, your question becomes spurious.

You are confusing actions based on a sense of spiritual/moral duty, regardless of consequences, with acts of volition based on temporal considerations. Judging either with the weights of the other abuses the scale and cheapens the actor as well as the actor's beliefs.

Though I suspect you reject the teachings of the Lord, Our Saviour as you reject all other compasses outside your own thought processes, you do injustice to those who follow Him by twisting his words to fit your simple polemical exercise.

I took criminal law way back in '87/88. Had a lovely bit of repartee after class with the professor about the absurdity of the whole mental illness defense argument, a line of reasoning that stems from the notion of "guilty mind" as a precursor to guilt in our system of laws and consequences. The limited knowledge of the functioning of the brain even back then suggested that the day will come when a defense is raised that one cannot be convicted of a crime that carries the mens rea requirement because all acts are but the involuntary reactions of the body to the synaptic firings of an organ in the head. She thought I was kidding. This lovely tidbit you have shared with us goes to that very point.

Of course, we are not compelled to follow the primitive firings of our brains. The entire process that we now call (thanks to M. Comte?) socialization is our collective attempt to override those basic instincts with learned behaviors rather than primitive ones. If there is a difference between us and ants, this would be it.

Good thing about altruistic acts is that, per your citation, they appear to be supported by BOTH the primal instincts and the socialization process.

Please note that I was not using an exact quote, loganrbt. If I had been, I would have used quotes and cited the passage. and, just in case you are unaware of it, his words were written down differently in Matthew, Mark, and Luke -- ya know, cause they were like 3 different dudes?;-)
Yours in scriptural rectitude,
Issodhos

My opinion would be that He thought it more rewarding to do the will of His Father rather than to reject the will of His Father and accepted the "cost" of doing so. Therefore, (being of flesh?), He was motivated by something other than selflessness.
Yours,
Issodhos

Distortion of the text is distortion whether the distorted text is placed in quotation marks or not. I expect far better defense than that from you, sir!

But do, pray the, enlighten me on the distinctions among the three gospels that you find so significant. For I see not the distinctions you suggest.

Yes, it is true Matthew has the prayer being said three times, Mark only twice, and Luke but once. But I cannot find that nugget in the ever so subtle differences in phrasing that give rise to the interpretation you derive. Perhaps if you were to tell us which version you found to be the more authentic and thus more in keeping with your own interpretation, I might learn to discern so keenly.